"Judge Sarah Bradley told them that the victim 'probably agreed to have sex with all of you".
probably? no, i think it's whether or not she actually did agree. that's one of the big issues whether or not it's considered sex or rape, consent. so, either she consented or didn't. which is it?
"Judge Bradley later defended her sentencing, telling The Australian that the sentences were "appropriate" because they were the penalties sought by the prosecution."
well, then the prosecution are idiots, too. what does the law say should happen in this case? i doubt that the law says that convicted rapists should be given sentences ranging from probation to six months in jail.
at least activists have some sense about them, exhibited here:
"There is nothing culturally, there is nothing morally, there is nothing socially and there is definitely nothing legally that would ever allow this sort of decision to be made," she said, the she being Boni Robertson.
now, i agree with the last statement, but this case does demonstrate some of the difficulties of living in a society that is made up of different cultures. i don't know if australia is considered a "melting pot" like the u.s. fancies itself, but i do imagine that they do have a fair amount of diversity. and, it seems that this is a little bit (big bit) of cross-cultural dilemma,
"The case comes six months after a high-profile inquiry into child sex abuse in remote northern Australia said it found problems in every Aborigine community visited by researchers."
so here we have a case of sex between 6 males, 4 of which were minors, and one female. one ten year old girl. let me say that again, a ten year old girl. it seems that we may have some issue in aboriginal cultural of when is the appropriate age of sex. i although i admit to my ignorance here, i'm going to go out on a limb and say that ten is too young, and would imagine that their culture would agree, too.
so, ask yourself, judge sarah bradley, was she:
1. consenting?
2. able to consent?
if you can't answer both of those with a legal yes, than it's rape. and they should be punished appropriately, even if the prosecution isn't asking for it.
one fnial quote to throw into the mix,
"The offenders came from some of the most powerful and prominent Aboriginal families in Cape York, while the victim's family had a lower status, the Australian reported."
ah, yes, this may not actually have anything to do with cross cultural values. it's got to do with justice being blind for the right price, now isn't it?
6 comments:
Very disturbing. Michael Vick will get more jail time then that.
he did. sentenced to 23 months.
I don't think culture plays into the ability of a ten year old to consent to sex. Granted, I loathe arbitrary statutory rape lines like the one we have here in the U.S. that says it's rape if you're under 18.
But, 10, sheesh.
right. but, at what age can you consent? and how do we decide that? and, is it a hard & fast rule of age or when your body is ready?
this part really has me thinking. most older cultures, women were married and having babies @ 13. now, this doesn't make it right, or how society should be, but i'm just wondering how we decide an age other than just picking an arbitrary one and making a rule?
I think it goes to the heart of whether you consider "right" to be universally right. Or if you consider your understanding of right to be closer to the ideal of rightness.
I'm not defending the rapists (participants in the acts under consideration) here, but it does make me wonder about the difference between cultural norms and cultural laws.
Here in the US, if enough people thought speeding, theft, or murder were ok, we would make it legal and under the law, right. We're just trusting that enough people are going to have similar values. Scary.
I know Im not bringing up anything revolutionary, but that doesn't mean its not worth thinking about.
Picking an arbitrary age and making a rule sounds so bad, yet is there any other way our laws can protect? But for somebody who places huge value in recognizing individual differences influenced by culture, religion, family ties, and gov't, I have to say that any law that originally may sound viable can immediately look unjustified in light of a specific circumstance. I'm thinking the 19 y.o. boy who is convicted of rape after having sex with his 17 y.o. girlfriend (with consent). I think this was what Adam was mentioning?? Or other laws having nothing to do with sex, but rather with defendants with special needs.
Yeah, this is why I have nothing to do with law. There is always an exception. And trying to figure out who's the exception and who's trying to abuse power is not something I think I can do.
Post a Comment